Friday, December 26, 2008

Santa Shoots Up the Joint, Eight Dead

CNN reports on the tragic shooting that took place in California in which a man dressed as Santa Claus killed eight people and himself.

Dressed as Santa, Bruce Jeffrey Pardo walked up to his ex-in-laws' home in Covina, California, on Christmas Eve and knocked on the door.

Pardo, 45, with a gun in one hand and a wrapped present in the other, began shooting indiscriminately, police said at a news conference Thursday.

He sprayed the living room with bullets.

Apparently bitter over an ugly divorce, Pardo snapped. After shooting up the in-laws' place, he reportedly went to a friend's house and turned the gun on himself. One report said two handguns were recovered at each scene, but no mention of where they came from or what he was doing with four guns.

I find those questions of interest. Perhaps it will come out later, but I suspect Mr. Pardo was one of the millions of law abiding gun owners; at least he was until two days ago. The stats that have been presented on this blog by commenters indicating how rare an event this is, to me are suspect. Although this is an overly dramatic example, the problem is still too many guns in the hands of too many people, many of whom are ill equipped to handle the responsibility.

Another way to look at it is if the misuse of guns by the lawful gun owner is really rare, we've still got a big problem for the simple reason that there are so many gun owners. A small percentage of 100 million, for example, is a big problem

Let me be perfectly clear. My own, extremely biased opinion is there are too many guns in the hands of too many people and something should be done about it.

26 comments:

"Let me be perfectly clear. My own, extremely biased opinion is there are too many guns in the hands of too many people and something should be done about it.

What's your opinion?"

My opinion is that the problems with the small percentage of lawful gun owners causing problems (and I can't confirm that this WAS a lawful gun ownership....the only information supporting that assessment is the very racist observation that I had that he's a middle-aged white male....but there is nothing that says he didn't aquire the gun illigally. LA County is one of the worst places for a gun owner to live as it is very difficult to get a legal gun)

But that problem is quickly eclipsed by lawful gun owners who use the gun to save the lives of themselves and others.

This is a VERY large statsitical group that you intentionally ignore.

I would say THAT is a huge problem.

Analogy time. Many anti-depressants show a very high rate of increasing suicide rates of people taking the drug. Now I would say first that the statistical data that comes to that conclution is deeply flawed because of the tendancies to the sample set over the general population (Most suicidal people ARE depressed) but I get very upset when I hear about people wanting to ban these drugs because of this information because they choose to ignore the good these drugs do by allowing people with clinical depression to live normal lives.

I would say your flawed methodology of observation is exactly like people wanting to ban benifical drugs because there are a handful of bad side effects.

“It clearly shows the caliber of criminals is getting more brazen, more violent,” said John Rivera, president of Miami-Dade County’s Police Benevolent Association, the police union. From the region’s top police officials to prosecutors and public defenders, there is growing unease about the shoot-first mind-set that has infected criminals in South Florida and across the nation. “There seems to be an indiscriminate, callous disregard for human life that is shocking and stunning,” said Public Defender Howard Finkelstein. “It’s almost that they believe violence is a respectable way to resolve conflicts.” . . . "[Prison] is not a deterrent anymore,” Lamberti said. ‘These [Dunkin’ Donuts robbers] weren’t upset because they couldn’t pay their rent or their 401(k)s went down. These are just cold-blooded thugs.”

For what it's worth, a person with proper training and a concealed or gun on his hip, as it was a private home, could have taken this asshole out before he shot anybody.

FOR ALL YOUR "BLUSTER", MIKE, I DOUBT YOU EVER EVEN WON A SCHOOLYARD FIGHT.

(referencing your earlier statement about me)

I've kicked people's asses and sent people to prison. We can compare notes when my biography that you'd like to read comes out.

If this cocksucker had walked in my house he would have died before he cleared leather.

Promise.

From Thomas.

Weerd seems OK but his people that insulted me on the web seem to toe the line as to legality rather than personal safety, as does Weerd. I never would have asked the "state of massachusetts" for permission to do anything as I walked about doing what needed done singing Dropkick Murphy tunes in my head.

I've made it a point to defend myself in spite of what pointy heads ever said about my "right" to do so and if they wish to challenge that right, they have fair odds, but the penalty of failure on their part is death.

Call the EU on me. I intentionally and willfully at times in my life carried illegal handguns in Western and Southern Europe. Guess what, no jail, no hassles but one, and I am still alive. No fingerprints, no dates, so feel free to call Interpol on me. I'll serve them coffee or brandy in my home and a decent venison dinner.

It's actually a split now in the American gun rights community:

People that obey laws they don't even believe in and find hateful and people that do what needs doing.

If "Santa" came in my house and left ventilated with many half inch holes, I'd not even be fingerprinted. If it turned out that I got arrested, I'd still not be dead.

Either way. I WIN.

Better to live on one's feet than die on one's knees. An Italian fellow wrote those words in a roundabout fashion. Some people called him "The Prince".

You may have read a bit of his repertoire?

As an amusing side note, I'm now involved in revoking another village handgun ban in Illinois.

Oak Park, for what it's worth. And we shall stomp their dicks in the dirt just like we did with everybody else in the state and and NYC and Chicago are next on the chopping block. The Oak Park Village President said he's fine with it because he has Pro Boner (most likely, considering the people in the area) attorneys. We have Supreme Court Winning Lawyers on our side and are paying them.

Some people thrive on a good fight. I'm one of them. That's why people like me win and set legal precedent and you write blogs about how you "think things should be if you ruled the world and everything was all cocoa puffs and marshmallows".

To the VICTOR goes the spoils.

Oak Park is probably the least firearms friendly place in the USA. And we will stomp them.

After we're done stomping local US laws, some of us might come over as ex-pats and fix your laws for you too. We already did it for Italy a few times before or do you hail Mussolini every morning? If you do, remember, he's dead.

The whole idea of the UN, which are a bunch of dickless cowards who have the USA do all the real fighting for them, having a statue by their building in NYC against guns and trying to remove small arms from private citizens in every nation in the world is near enough for me to want to launch a LINEBACKER STRIKE on you elitist bastards that can't even fight.

Many times in the past century the USA has rescued Europeans from fascism and dictatorship they brought upon themselves, gratis, as far as costs. Maybe they think of the USA as we think of our Second Amendment?

We think:"If the government gets out of hand, we will change it by force of arms, if need be."

They think:"If we fuck up our governments too badly, the USA will come bail us out again and fix our governments by force of arms because a lot of them have family here or from here, it can be a nice place to visit, and they're nice guys."

About Guns preventing crime, Weer'd said, "This is a VERY large statsitical group that you intentionally ignore."

And Tom said, "Guns prevent more crime than they cause and all your bias in the world can't prevent facts from being FACTS, mike."

Well, I say I'm not ignoring anything, I'm disputing it. I don't believe reliable stats are available to prove either side of this argument, so I see it one way while you see it another. One observation I've based my opinion on is the overwhelming ratio in the main stream press of about 100 to 1, misuse of firearms compared to defensive use. I don't accept the explanation that it's because the press is biased against guns. What the press is biased towards is sexy news stories, and some of the defensive gun stories are sexy as can be. My conclusion is that the misuse is far greater than the defensive use.

The majority of press surveyed are anti-gun. FACT. Same as the majority of them vote Democrat.

Lots of defensive uses of firearms go un-reported, especially by people in places where you aren't supposed to have them. When a guy in Chicago (downtown) tried to mug me and I stuck a .45 in his face and he backed the fuck away, do you think I called the CPD to tell them I had just thwarted a mugger with a handgun I couldn't legally possess? In case you're feeling mentally impaired todayA: I had no interest in holding him for the cops at gunpoint as then I would have been arrested for having a gun.B: I had no interest in reporting that I had held off a mugger with a gun as I would have been arrested for having a gun while the mugger was gone and "free" so I'd be twice shooting myself in the foot, so to speak.

Most "gun crime", using the pejorative you seem to like, is committed in cities that make it very hard if not impossible to carry or use firearms for self defense. These are also the cities with the largest crime problems and highest murder rate.

One might extrapolate that many people have been in my situation in those same places where murders get play all over the press.

I've carried in Europe as well as Africa, Central America, Mexico, SF, LA, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington DC, just to list a few places I wasn't supposed to. If I defensively used a firearm in any of those places I'd do (and have done) my level best for it not to involve any actual shooting and I wouldn't and haven't called the police to report anything when I've driven people off. If I defensively killed somebody in one of those places I'd likely leave them for the vultures too. If I considered them enough of a waste of air to kill them to save my life I sure as hell am not going to go to jail over their corpse, if only for a firearms violation.

If I shot an attacker and left him for the vultures in such a scenario as above and didn't report it you anti-gun people, NOT KNOWING THE CONTEXT OF THE PERSON BEING KILLED, would automatically chalk it up as a firearms murder, not a self defense shooting. It would also be reported as such in the press.

That's also FACT.

If you want entirely reliable numbers BLACK AND WHITE and unarguable on self-defense vs criminal usage of firearms the only way you are going to get close to it is by removing all gun laws in every country on the planet. Even then, many people wouldn't come forward to report things, in case they might get in trouble.

I killed a rattlesnake in the back acres not long ago. I didn't call anybody in the Wildlife or Animal Control departments to report it. All that mattered to me was whether or not I had a rattlesnake on my land. Whether or not some office in the capitol has a listing of number of snakes killed this year that's entirely accurate is of no interest to me.

Oh: Just to help people out at mike's accidental pro-gun blog. If you intend to carry in Europe, fly into Germany or Switzerland. DO NOT fly into the UK or France.

EU community and it's lack of border checks makes the rest easy. I once took a train from Amsterdam, through Germany, changed trains, and went to Alsace and nobody even asked for my ticket. EU obviously makes it much simpler to carry firearms and knives around Europe when you can take a train through three countries and nobody even checks if you have a train ticket.

None of all that passport control and customs checks if you're a respectable looking American. The only place you run into a hassle is with French Immigration/Customs people if you choose to chunnel. They never really look at anything though. They double and triple check your passport and delay you for what seems like forever but they never much seem to be looking at your luggage. I'd have French Prison stories to share with you if they did.

Tom said, "Lots of defensive uses of firearms go un-reported," which I agree with and have even mentioned myself. At the same time lots of misuse of firearms goes unreported. What about those times when someone seems to be acting aggressively, the legally concealed gun comes out only to discover that the aggressive individual didn't have lethal intent at all? That must happen, no? What do we say about those times, no harm no foul?

Sorry I am a little slow in responding, took the weekend off from blogging.

You say that infringing on our rights is acceptable when it is for the "common good".

So defining common good is a need, then proving that the infringement of our rights has worked to improve the common good.

According to your opinion cities and states with restrictive gun control should be safer then those without.

Let's test that theoryD.C. Population 563,384 with 248 murdersFort Worth Texas population 567,339 with 37 murders

Even if there is a strong flow of guns from legal owners to illegal owners, shouldn't Fort Worth with the states lax gun laws, all the states around it have lax gun laws, be allowing guns to be used more?

Remember that CDC study that I've pointed to in the past? The one that says it can find NO evidence as to the effectiveness of gun control laws.

So it doesn't appear that gun laws actually can do anything to improve the "common good".

The other aspect that I want to point out is that misusing firearms is already covered by laws. Laws that aren't stopping people from breaking them, right?

So creating laws to "prevent" guns from reaching criminals will do nothing but drive up the price of guns....just like laws against some drugs have done nothing but increase the price of drugs.

And just so Mike Knows, I ran the same numbers with just about every city in the US. Take two cities with similar populations and take one in a gun-permissive state and one in a gun-control state...or a state that allows separate laws in a city.

Amazingly just about EVERY time you get less murders and violent crime.

Even some surprised me, like Miami Florida. Florida known as the "Gunshine State" because of it's strong gun culture, and Miami known for it's dense population, and as a hub in the drug trade, and populated by Cuban ex-pat gangs...and yet compared to cities like Chicago Il, and Newark NJ the murder and violent crime rate are nearly double.

Since passing shall issue concealed permit laws a few years back and them becoming a way of life MIAMI HAD IT'S FIRST MONTH WITH NO HOMICIDES this Fall. First time in about the history of the city that anybody can remember that happening.

Chicago still won't even allow handgun ownership, although we have them headed to a circuit or supreme court loss over that law as this is pecked out on my keyboard. They've had over 500 homicides this year.

Gun Control WORKS(For Criminals)

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters," he says.

"If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins. --Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, admitted murderer of 19, implicated in many more beyond his plea bargain admissions.

What I call that situation, Weer'd, in which the concealed carry guy pulls the gun unnecessarily is abuse of power and bullying. And I'm afraid it's something you're all going to have to deal with if you haven't already. How frequently in traffic or on line somewhere or in pedestrian traffic do we run into some pushy asshole whose behavior is exactly like that of a would-be killer? You'll find them, especially since that's what you guys are on the look out for. What are you gonna do? Are you gonna wait till he betrays his true intent, which may be too late or are you gonna step up to the plate and do a little preventative intervention? Better to be safe than sorry, right?

What about those times when someone seems to be acting aggressively, the legally concealed gun comes out only to discover that the aggressive individual didn't have lethal intent at all?

...anymore.

the key word in this hypothetical scenario, mike, is that after the gun came out your hypothetical aggressor found out s/he didn't have lethal intent at all, anymore.

speculating that that would also have been the case if no gun would have come out is reckless bait-and-switching on your part, mike. you can't know that the presence of the gun wasn't exactly what kept lethal intent from being implemented.

in fact, knowing even the least little bit about human aggression and human nature, it's much more likely that that latter hypothetical is the true description. that means it isn't "bullying" or "abuse of power" at all; it is preventing violence and potentially saving life.

SOunds like the problem with this man was less his gun access than his anger--he might have come in and stabbed some people if he had not had a gun --or blown up the house --or set a car bomb in everybody's car. There are ways to get even without guns.

Seems to me that the problem is that people are more emotionally dysfunctional than ever --they often do not really believe in a God who will hold them accountable; they make unwise choices because they have disregarded the "eternal rules of right and wrong" as one of our nation's founders put it. They sleep around and marry unwisely and the promiscuity continues after the wedding. They drink, do meth and coke and lose their time on video games and fail in school and jobs. They lack disciplining parents --and self-discipline. And the marriages and relationships thus fail. Desperation and depression and self-centered, angry, vengeful thinking drive them to desperate deeds --with or without guns.

"What I call that situation, Weer'd, in which the concealed carry guy pulls the gun unnecessarily is abuse of power and bullying."

Wow, this, and what you wrote below was nothing short of dillutional, Mike...and also a tool that gun control groups LOVE to use.

If a dead body isn't formed then a crime never happened, and any defensive gun use in any such scenario doesn't count.

It works really well if you hate reality and want to push a false agenda.

Let's take a similar scenario. A woman walking to her car late at night is grabbed from behind by a large man who is muttering lewd sexual slurs, she drives her car keys into his neck hurting him badly, and he flees.

Now what do we have here Mike? Assault with attempt to rape, or a woman being a "bully"?

Of course I think we'd both prefer that she report this to the police, but what if the woman second guesses her attacker's motive? what if she's concerned she may have delivered a lethal blow for just an attempted crime and doesn't report it? What if she just wants to go home and take a shower and see her children? Is it a crime to leave the scene of an attempted rape, like it is an auto accident?

So does it change the scenario if she doesn't report it?

How about rather than the crude instrument of car keys she pulls a gun, and the rapist is frightened off. Does that change anything?

At what point does an assaulted and threatened woman become a "bully" in your book, Mike?

We can mix and match this scene all around,Mike. Make the victim a man, add more guns, whatever. When one person is violently attacked, when do they become a bully?

According to many of the people you reference for gun-control like Paul Helmke or Bryan Miller ANY person with a gun is a bully, and it isn't self defense if the attacker isn't killed with the gun (Note how all these assholes love to point out the Colorado Church shooting that once severely wounded by a CCW holder,Jeanne Assam, the shooter took his own life. He doesn't count either)

And if anybody's life IS taken with a gun in a Justifiable Homicide, maybe the shooter should have reasoned with his attacker, right? Obviously they went too far...

Also Meleanie Hain is a reluctant spokesman for the 2nd Amendment, and Bryan is a professional anti-gunner, and I have to say he gets his ass handed to him. Especially when the woman calls in about her experience in the restroom that Bob mentioned.

I hope you'll watch it...but I'm still not sure if you're willing to actually put your views to the test.

I think you guys are purposely misconstruing my use of "bully." I'm referring to the situation in which you use your weapon to quash a threat when there ISN'T ONE.

Most of you guys are going to carry for your whole lives and never face a life threatening situation, but every once in a while you are going to use that gun just in case, because it's better to be safe than sorry. And when you multiply that by all the multitudes who think like you do, we've got a major problem on our hands. Accidents happen, mistakes are made, all because of that absurd justification that it's better to have the gun and not need it that to need it and not have it. It's crap, and I'm afraid all your stats and all your passion and all your 2nd Amendment nonsense has not convinced me otherwise. And I have given your side a good open-minded look all these months, believe it or not.

I'm referring to the situation in which you use your weapon to quash a threat when there ISN'T ONE.

you're right, there is no such situation.

no threat == no pulling your gun. not ever, no matter what; merely brandishing a firearm is use of deadly force, and you just don't use deadly force unless you'd be justified in killing.

heck, i don't carry, i don't even own a gun i could carry, yet even i know that much about carrying. it's as common knowledge regarding carrying a gun as the use of a steering wheel is regarding driving a car.

yet here you go, worrying about all those drivers out there who'd try to steer with the parking brake, and calling them bullies for all the traffic accidents they must cause. not that you have any handy examples of such behavior to cite at us, but that doesn't stop you from worrying about them.

My initial statement on your "Bullying" comment stands, you're all wet on this issue, and that statement is nothing short of dilutional.

BTW Mike pulling a gun without justifiable cause is Criminal Treat and Assault With a Deadly Weapon, even if no shots are fired. These are felonies and a conviction of said charges will remove your right to own or carry a firearm for the rest of your life.

You tout being logical....but can you see how illogical you above statements are?